Best first posts on this site?

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

What are the best first posts you have seen on this site?

Were starting out strong with this one.

Today our great president Trump has struck a historic peace deal in the Middle East, between Israel and the kingdom of Bahrain, and as the bible foretells, Jesus will be coming back from the dead very soon

Today has been a major and great day for the trump administration and thanks to today our great president will be remembered for thousands of years as a saint and a prophet from god. Our children will hear stories of the man who saved the world. Trump isn’t just our president he is our saviour and we must worship and respect him.

Like it or not I’m sorry, Biden isn’t beating the man who brought Jesus back from the dead.

[Crumpets]

Absolutely cannot be beat. Warning: NSFW

You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

zoosexual sex or casual sex between two different species, which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable, positives for both species, and  helps to control population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.

By all means legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

It definitely makes me feel better about my first post on the site. Context: Who are your top five choices to be the next president? c. 2015

Of people actually running:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Bernie Sanders
3. Jim Webb
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jim Gilmore

Of all eligible citizens:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Gary Locke
3. Boris Johnson (technically, he was born in New York)
4. Bill Gates
5. Colin Powell

[YE]

He can teach nothing.

[Kuumo]

Absolutely cannot be beat. Warning: NSFW

You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

zoosexual sex or casual sex between two different species, which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable, positives for both species, and  helps to control population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.

By all means legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

It definitely makes me feel better about my first post on the site.

That guy seems like he posted on the wrong forum.


My first post was this one-liner response to "Rate GA-06."

Likely D. The Atlanta suburbs have only moved further left since 2018.

However, my third post in response to "Bernie Porn: Trump’s Bible photo op caused immediate drop in support" would have been a better first post in hindsight.

When I first saw this, I thought someone was arguing that Trump's Bible photo op could only hurt him in a perverse pro-Bernie fantasy. Now I just feel bad for that pollster guy Bernie Porn.

More seriously, the Lafayette park incident was disturbing even by Trump era standards.

[Battista Minola 1616]

I don't remember any first post except mine. Which, not to be a braggard, was quite an effort post. Although I am sure that after three months of exposure to this site, I would word it differently in some parts.

Hi!
I am a newcomer to this forum and this is my first post.

I see that people were having a fiery discussion mostly about what "liberal" and "conservative" mean.
I think that being from Italy (so Western democracy, but not the USA), I can add some context - although some have already tried.

Basically, from my imperfect understanding of United States history, I agree that Democrats have always been more "liberal" and Republicans more "conservative".

I think that a lot of confusion stems from the fact that current parties are really polarized and discernible from each other, one of them stems from a liberal philosophy and the other from a conservative philosophy.
Because of this, the framework under which people, parties, ideas etc. are categorized is "liberal - moderate - conservative", which is intended to mean "left - centre - right"; this is problematic.
Right-wing is not inherently conservative, left-wing (even more so) is not inherently liberal, and who the heck are "moderates"*?

If you go outside of North America**, you can find a lot of things like "liberal conservatism", "conservative liberalism", places like Australia where the main party ON THE RIGHT is called Liberal Party, places like France where there was nothing you could call liberal before Emmanuel Macron founded his party, but in general I believe liberalism is thought of being somewhere in between conservatives or nationalists and labourites and socialists, so usually towards the centre.

I would also argue that I think some Democrats are not really liberals (especially near the Warren/Bernie zone) and are better described as social democrats or in some cases democratic socialists; I'm more fine with calling Republicans conservatives.

So, my advice should be to think heavily about the context before deciding to use "liberal" or "conservative" vs "left" or "right" vs "progressive" and other labels.

*There are places including Italy where moderate is usually a euphemism for centre-right, but this is for another post.

**I didn't say "United States" because I suspect that Canada has to a degree the same problem, given that its two main parties are the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

[Dr. MB]

[Left Wing]

A legend was born

[GeorgiaModerate]

This was mine.  Nothing spectacular, but interesting in hindsight considering how much that trend has continued in the last 12 years.

Another depressing note about basically the worst county in the country.

I currently live in Forsyth County (the fifth metro Atlanta county that I've lived in).   It's not quite as bad as you portray.  It's true that Forsyth has an awful history, but the county is finally becoming more diverse as Atlanta's population spreads outward.  Not that it's very diverse, but a few years ago it wasn't *at all* diverse.  And although it's still a heavily Republican area, it's no longer a complete stranglehold for the GOP.

Forsyth did give McCain a large majority, but there were at least nine Georgia counties by my count that gave him even larger majorities.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My first post is a pretty nondescript "who would you have voted for in...?" post, but my second post is one that I stand by entirely and that is (dare I say it) still relevant today:

William Henry Harrison was a lightweight in that he ran his entire campaign(s) on no policies whatsoever. Whatever he was planning to do as President may indeed have been very good and better than anything Van Buren did, but we have no way of knowing that because his entire campaign was basically destitute of any actual positions. Quite that extent of big-tent-ness really doesn't appeal to me.

I also inherently distrust the kind of populism (not populism in general, but that particular kind of pseudo-salt-of-the-earth, tacitly anti-intellectual, and most of all militarist populism) on which Harrison did in fact campaign, but that wouldn't have been my MAIN problem with him.

ETA: Actually, sorry, the Whig candidate in my state in 1836 actually would have been Daniel Webster. That would have been a more difficult decision for me to make.

My third post, however, in which I gave Bob Menendez a better letter grade than Frank Lautenberg as Senator from New Jersey, aged like polonium-212.

[It’s so Joever]

Joe Biden certainly won't win it. It will go in a landslide to Wayne Messam in the primaries!

Yesss!
#Messamentum

My first post was great. I still believe Wayne Messam would have won a 47 State sweep had he been the nominee.

[°Leprechaun]

Title:   

Who benefits from voter turnout?

« on: January 30, 2004, 03:00:04 pm »   
Do you think either party benefits from increased turnout? 

I think the Democrats do and I also think that there will be a higher turnout than usual this year. One factor is all the anger at Bush for Iraq and for ruining the economy. (not to mention the environment)

Anyway if it is true that a higher turnout helps the Democrats, all the more reason to be hopefully for the defeat of Bush.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Gracile]

Since this thread seems to be turning into people reposting their first posts, here's mine:

Pritzker was kind of a uniquely bad fit for IL-06. He underperformed pretty much every other state-level Democratic candidate in the area in addition to Casten - so it seems a bit fruitless to glean information about the district's political leanings at the federal level from one gubernatorial race. Besides, it was Rauner who beat Pritzker IL-06, not Sanguinetti. There are still a lot of unknowns with Sanguinetti as a candidate in her own right. She is more conservative than Rauner on social issues, and those views will likely harm her should they gain traction.

I would call this race Likely D. Casten does have some incumbency advantage, and I think he has done a good job so far at messaging to the district through town halls and such. Additionally, the fundamentals of the district are going to be tough for Sanguinetti. Trump will almost certainly lose IL-06 in 2020 (with a strong possibility that it will trend further D), and it is hard to imagine any Republican overperforming those headwinds to eke out a win.

When I first joined I made far more effort posts that I just simply don't have the patience to do these days. Sad!

[Statilius the Epicurean]

My first post on Atlas is kind of amusing in current circumstances:

Re: The Queen of Paradox and the Crumbling Stone Wall
« Reply #51 on: 13 August 2015, 18:24:51 »   
Can someone explain to me what makes Biden unelectable?

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=217381.msg4691185#msg4691185

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

PRI is the party of The Leader and The Flag. Historically, it was created to give the revolutionary generals a platform where they could interact and share spoils without shooting. Since the founders were, generally, sociallist, so was the party, at least early on.  Rather quickly, it converged to the following arrangement. The party would completely and loyally support the president in whatever he decided to do during a single 6-year term. At the end of the term, the president would nominate a successor (from within the party, and not a relative of himself),  which the party made sure would be overwhelmingly elected, and then unconditionally retire from politics.   In return, the party was guaranteed (honestly or otherwise) all but a handfull of congressional seats, all governorships and all but a few   municipal administrations.  Opposition (mainly, the right-wing PAN) was usually allowed to elect a half-dozen congressmen and a mayor of a village or two.  If they disagreed with such a paltry alotment, they were free not to take their seats.

Starting in the mid 1980's PRI had a sequence of 3 pro-market presidents. Once the new orientation of the presidency (and, hence, of the party) became clear, the left wing of it split, forming the PRD. The first 2 pro-market presidents (de la Madrid and Salinas) were not really democrats, but did allow slightly greater degree of political freedom, resulting in the opposition (PAN) capturing a few large municipalities and, eventually, some governorhips.  The left-wing of PRI (now the PRD), probably, won the 1988 presidential election, but a timely "computer glitch" spoiled their chances.

In 1994 an "accidental" (and, as it turned out, disloyal to the party) president Zedillo came to power. He wanted to ensure his place in history by introducing democracy to Mexico. PRI was in a bind: loyal to the presidency, PRI congressmen were forced to vote for their own defeat, by creating an independent electoral commission and electoral tribunals. In 1997 they lost majority in Congress, and in 2000 the presidency (they still have the largest congressional faction and most governorhips, though).

The current system is, roughly, like this. The left-wing PRD (the true PRI of old) is a socialist party. They address each other "comrades" the way and govern in the capital city and the states of Guerrero, Michoacan, Baja California Sur and Zacatecas, and have a strong presence in Tlaxcala and Tabasco and parts of the Mexico State. Their organization in the rest of the country is near negligible. Their congressional faction is weak. In some states they may have inherited the PRI patronage network. Their color is yellow, not red.

The right-wing PAN is the traditional opposition. Early on (in the 1950s) it had an economic conservative and a religious conservative wings.  Later the religious conservatives were dominant, but  the current leadership has a number of outsiders (including president Fox himself), so the religious wing is somewhat in check. The party governs in a number of central and northern states and is the principal opposition in most of the remainder (usually, to PRI, to PRD in the capital). They control the presidency and have the second-largest faction in the Congress. They run under the blue-white colors.

The PRI is ... well, the patronage party. It has multiple factions and is, in general, a "big tent". Traditionally, they also address each other "comrades" (though, they use a different, milder word than the PRD). They are in league with the unions and the free-market wing is blamed for the defeat in 2000, so these days they are somewhat more to the left, but they won't insist on it too much.  Their colors are green-white-red, so if you vote against them, you vote against the national flag.

Additionally, there are a few small parties, which control some seats/ offices.  The Greens are a family business directed at getting campaign funds and sellig the votes to the highest bidder (somewhat in the mode, but with a lot fewer principles, then the old NY Liberal party) . The Labor Party (color - red) is a more radical version of the PRD (the non-PRI leftists). The Convergence party and a couple of newer start-ups complete the picture.

To make slight sense, here is a sample of party adverts for the fothcoming Mexico State election (one of the few states were all three parties are strong).  The election is next month, the adverts are seen all over the city subway (which gets out into the state).

PAN: "under the PAN goverment in the last 4 years 3 million people bought new houses" (subsidezed by the government). "under PAN x gazillion citizens got sociall security!"/

PRD: "The PRD-controlled government  of the Capital City has introduced old age pensions for y hundred thousand capitalinos". "The City assambley has passed the old-age and the young-age laws protecting your rights" "Mexico - a different government".

PRI (note: the current governor is from PRI): "Join the party and win! Your party-membership card is your lottery ticket!". In front of a big pyramid or a big montain, or a torso of a soccer player the national (and party) tricolor and a slogan: "Very Mexican. PRI".

I guess, that's enough.

[MarkD]

Of course most of us will post our own first post, since it makes no sense that any of us would pore through thousands of user profiles looking at each one's first post.

Here's mine.

My number one legislative goal is to see a constitutional amendment get adopted which rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
I drafted such a proposal; it is long and detailed.
The most important part of my proposal is to take out this sentence from the 14th: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I have written a set of detailed and much more specific rules to replace that sentence. Keeping this explanation very brief, states must still obey most of the right enumerated in the first eight amendments, but the Ninth is irrelevant to the state and unenforceable against them by the federal government. The Ninth only binds the powers of the federal government itself. States must not engage in discrimination against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status. States must continue respecting every citizens equal right to vote; gerrymandering will be prevented by requiring all redrawing of congressional district and state legislative district maps must be done by independent redistricting commissions. Scold the Supreme Court for its ruling in Bush v. Gore, telling the Court to never do anything like that ever again.
Numerous Supreme Court precedents would be overturned by this proposal, including Roe v. Wade, which I'm sure will be the most controversial part of what I am proposing. But the way I wrote it makes it quite clear why the Court should not have decided in favor of "abortion rights" in the first place. A broad goal of this proposal is return a lot of law-making power to the states that the Supreme Court has usurped from them numerous times. It's based on my belief in states' powers -- I try not to use the term "states' rights" unless I am quoting someone else. The Supreme Court inappropriately has been deciding whether or not state/local laws are unconstitutional by deciding, abstractly, subjectively, when does a state not have a good enough reason to deprive someone of "liberty," or when does a state not have a good enough reason for treating people unequally. What constitutes "good enough" has been an ever-shifting goal post, and has been based purely on the subjective beliefs of the majority of Justices. I want to eliminate as much legislating from the bench as I can.
This proposal has elements that will be pleasing to conservatives and loathsome to liberals, while other elements will have the opposite effect. I purposely drafted it with the concept of a compromise in mind.
I have sent copies to certain members of the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee (sometimes "sent" means that I delivered it right to their Washington D.C. office in person). If Congress does not ever get around to proposing it, I also support the Convention of States Project.

[brucejoel99]

you all are really underestimating Dean. He's hardly some ultra-liberal, and is really much more like Clinton than anything else. He's even to the right of Kerry and probably even Clark. What type of ultraliberal has an A rating from the NRA? Calling him an Al-qaeda sympathizer is just ridiculous, and incredibly immature.

anyway, I don't think Minnesota will go to Bush. Whle Gore did win it by only about 2%, Nader took around 5%. He won't get that much this time. If he runs again, he'll make very little of an impact due to the far left just wanting Bush out. I'd say his run would be more comparable to Buchanan's last year.

anyway, the breakdown of Minnesota. First you have the Twin Cities. These are solidly Democratic and Bush doesn't have a prayer of making it anywhere in here. However Nader got 10% in Minneapolis. Like I said before, that won't happen this time. So it means more solidly Democratic votes. Then there's the northwest. While this area is fairly socially conservative, it is still one of the most solidly Democratic regions of the country. Gore got over 60% in Duluth and even did well in the outer surrounding parts of it. This is actually the most solidly Democratic part of the state, since Humphrey won it over Jesse Ventura, while Ventura won the Twin Cities. If it comes close to a Republican, it's due to gun issues, since it's a big hunting region. A pro-gun Democrat like Dean is unbeatable here. He'll get at least 55% here, and over 60% in the Twin Cities.

Then there's the south where I live. This is a pretty diverse region. Some towns like Albert Lea are traditionally Democratic and remain it. Others like Rochester are pretty Republican. There are lots of college towns here (including where I live and go to school). The district here narrowly went to Bush due to the large influence of the western part and Rochester, but it can be won. Neutralizing the gun issue will also help big time.

The Twin Cities suburbs range from how inward they are, the innermost being very Democratic to the outer ones being solidly Republican. However the ones where the majority of the population lives are a socially liberal/fiscally conservative bunch. Bush won most of these places by narrow margins, but with his far right social record to attack him on, and a fiscally conservative Democrat like Dean against him, it could tilt Democratic.

Then there's the west. While not as solidly Republican as the Dakotas, it is still pretty Republican. Bush will still do fine here. However I don't think it'll be enough. As for Minnesota having a Republican governor, that won't help. He's pretty unpopular, and isn't liked by anyone besides the Republican base, the 44% who elected.

And Pennsylvania will also stay Democratic. After all Rendell won in a landslide and he was the mayor of an ultra liberal city following a popular Republican governor. If he can do it, a governor of a rural state like Dean sure can.

I'm trying to put up my map, but my comp keeps screwing up when I submit it. I'll keep trying though.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I'll just post my own first post:

A Republican filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate seems entirely reasonable for 2018.  Let's say that a moderate GOP momentum results in a 0 net in 2016 (Kirk losing, but Reid also losing) and elects President Walker or Bush (or insert your Republican here).  Then, it is crazy that Democrats won in ND, MT, WV, MO, and IN in 2012 to begin with, and those 5 get the GOP to 59.  WI, MN, PA, MI, VA, FL, and OH then are all possibilities.  The GOP, if it could hold on in NV, would only need 1 of those 7 to get to 60.  If the GOP has two big waves in 2016 and 2018 and has Kirk win and a Republican win in CO in '16, the GOP could get as high as 68, more than enough for a veto-proof majority, which wouldn't matter with a Republican president.

Given what I said and that I created a thread to do that, I'm almost surprised I didn't get accused of being a sock or a troll, but things might have been calmer back in 2015.  I do think 60 seats may have been possible for Republicans in a Clinton midterm though.

[Mr. Morden]

I guess sock accounts shouldn't really count, but still:

It's true. Joe Republic and his cronies were able to out-manuever me and ultimately ban me from this forum. Unfortunately for Joe Republic, what he failed to consider was that my desire to reclaim what is righfully mine was so intense that not even Hell itself could hope to contain me. I have returned to finish what I've started. Joe Republic will rue the day he betrayed me!

And then relatedly:

Tenure is most definitely needed. I would know; I am a professor

[Left Wing]

John Kerry, Andrew Cuomo, Bob Casey Jr., Jeff Merkley and Terry Mcauliffe probably all run. I think Kerry or Cuomo would be the moderate everyone coalesces around before super Tuesday. I think Merkley or Warren probably wins the primary because this many moderates in the race would split the moderate vote more.

[Ferguson97]

Biden is the most electable out of anybody on the list. Personally, I think a Biden/Harris ticket (with Harris running in 24) would be our best chance at beating Trump.

My first post is the quote in my signature, and it ended up being an accurate prediction

[GeorgiaModerate]

I'll just post my own first post:

A Republican filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate seems entirely reasonable for 2018.  Let's say that a moderate GOP momentum results in a 0 net in 2016 (Kirk losing, but Reid also losing) and elects President Walker or Bush (or insert your Republican here).  Then, it is crazy that Democrats won in ND, MT, WV, MO, and IN in 2012 to begin with, and those 5 get the GOP to 59.  WI, MN, PA, MI, VA, FL, and OH then are all possibilities.  The GOP, if it could hold on in NV, would only need 1 of those 7 to get to 60.  If the GOP has two big waves in 2016 and 2018 and has Kirk win and a Republican win in CO in '16, the GOP could get as high as 68, more than enough for a veto-proof majority, which wouldn't matter with a Republican president.

Given what I said and that I created a thread to do that, I'm almost surprised I didn't get accused of being a sock or a troll, but things might have been calmer back in 2015.  I do think 60 seats may have been possible for Republicans in a Clinton midterm though.

If Clinton had won, I think the Republicans would have had a very good shot at 60 Senate seats in 2018 along with keeping the House. 

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Title:   

Who benefits from voter turnout?

« on: January 30, 2004, 03:00:04 pm »   
Do you think either party benefits from increased turnout? 

I think the Democrats do and I also think that there will be a higher turnout than usual this year. One factor is all the anger at Bush for Iraq and for ruining the economy. (not to mention the environment)

Anyway if it is true that a higher turnout helps the Democrats, all the more reason to be hopefully for the defeat of Bush.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

There was sky high turnout that year, on both sides, with the Democrats smashing their voter turnout targets. Problem was, Republicans did even better that year, with the surprising high evangelical turnout.